DOCSLIB.ORG

Robert Audi, the ARCHITECTURE of REASON: the STRUCTURE and SUBSTANCE of RATIONALITY

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Robert Audi, the ARCHITECTURE of REASON: the STRUCTURE and SUBSTANCE of RATIONALITY Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 22 Issue 3 Article 12 7-1-2005 Robert Audi, THE ARCHITECTURE OF REASON: THE STRUCTURE AND SUBSTANCE OF RATIONALITY W. Jay Wood Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Wood, W. Jay (2005) "Robert Audi, THE ARCHITECTURE OF REASON: THE STRUCTURE AND SUBSTANCE OF RATIONALITY," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 22 : Iss. 3 , Article 12. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil200522312 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol22/iss3/12 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. BOOK REVIEWS 381 The Architecture of Reason: The Structure and Substance of Rationality by Robert Audi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. xvi +286. $19.95 (paper). W. JAY WOOD, Wheaton College Robert Audi’s book The Architecture of Reason offers an impressively comprehensive and systematic account of the structure of rationality that unifies the theoretical rationality of reason and the practical rationality of action and desire. It draws together many of the themes Audi has devel- oped in earlier works such as Action, Intention, and Reason (1993), and The Structure of Justification (1993). Though the book covers a wide expanse of philosophical terrain—e.g. contemporary epistemology, meta-ethics, and moral psychology—it is nevertheless rich with examples and replete with helpful, nuanced distinctions. The first of three major sections contains chapters 1 and 2, in which Audi develops a modest foundationalist account of theoretical rationality, one of the twin pillars of his overall architectonic. The epistemic justifica- tion of particular beliefs, “focal rationality,” is a matter of a belief’s being “amply well-grounded.” Adequate grounding arises either inferentially from other beliefs or, in the case of basic beliefs, from ultimate experiential sources such as perception, introspection, and memory. Structurally, ratio- nality is hierarchical; substantively, it rests ultimately in experience. These grounds are unified insofar as they tend toward the truth. Audi responds to the dilemma famously posed by Wilfred Sellars for any such founda- tionalist account of justification. On Sellar’s view, the non-conceptual expe- rience of, say, seeing a tree may not need justification, but neither can it confer any, since only reasons (or propositions) can confer justification. In a Reidian vein, Audi distinguishes between “citing a ground,” which does require that we conceptualize our grounds, and the “fact that I see it” (p. 17). Experiences are not reasons for accepting basic beliefs—they needn’t be conceptualized—but they may nevertheless serve as a kind of warrant. Audi ‘s is a modest foundationalism as it allows the justification conferred by experiential grounds to be overridable, variable in content among believers, and coherence is allowed to play a role in the justification of inferential beliefs (p. 30, 205). In chapter 2, Audi distinguishes between a belief’s being justified and rational. Rationality is more than mere absence of irrationality, but a matter of “entitlement,” or “permissibility,” “roughly, consonance with reason”(p. 52). Any belief that is justified is also rational, but the converse is not true. “[A] rational belief need not be justified, even if the person must have some degree of justification for it” (p. 196). Consider Audi’s example of a juror treated to mixed evidence, who nevertheless forms the belief that the defendant is innocent. The evidence may be sufficient to entitle the juror to this belief while not being sufficient to justify it. Section II, containing chapters 3–6, offers an account of practical reason that is structurally analogous to theoretic reason, containing elements cor- responding to inferential and non-inferential beliefs. Practical reason is the sort of reasoning we engage in to bring about certain goals or ends. If we 382 Faith and Philosophy act to bring about some end, this may be grounded in still another interme- diary desire, but ultimately, all our actions, intentions, and desires are grounded in intrinsic desires, which are the “unmoved movers” of practi- cal rationality, themselves a response to the felt qualities of the experiences we undergo. We want to swim on a hot day because of the intrinsic quali- ties associated with being in the water. So, foundational desires, like foun- dational beliefs, have their ultimate basis in features of our experiences. Practical rationality depends crucially on theoretical rationality—but is not reducible to it—for the reasoning we do to bring about our goals and pur- poses depends on its being guided by suitably rational means-end beliefs. “Belief is the crucial connective tissue that links instrumental desires to intrinsic desires on which they are based” (p. 76). So intentional actions bear a structural analogy to inferential beliefs, as they too are based on rea- sons that explain them. The practical reasons arising out of our desires are unified insofar as they lead us to goodness. If intrinsic desires are desires for enjoyable experiences such as a cool swim or a stirring symphony, does this raise the specter of egoism, of all my action being ultimately grounded in my pleasure or enjoyment? Chapter 4 addresses this concern by crucially distinguishing between my joy being grounded in the pleasurable qualities of the experience and its being grounded in the fact that it is my experience, between wanting to experience the qualities of a cool swim and wanting these qualities for oneself. Chapter 6 exploits this distinction. Assuming that others are equally capable of expe- riencing such pleasures, then they too can be equally rational in pursuing them, and we are thereby given a reason to bring it about that the other swims. Not only does Audi’s account avoid egoism, but he also argues that altruism is rationally demanded by reason. Chapter 5 advances an objec- tive account of practical reason, in contrast to Humean instrumentalism. Reason is not merely the “scout and spy” of desire, as Hobbes once put it. “Desire without belief has no direction” (p. 108); our instrumental desires must ultimately meet the demands of practical reason. Inasmuch as the experiential grounds undergirding Audi’s theory of rationality are internalist and pluralist, he anticipates the charge that his theory is relativistic. In chapter 7, Audi helpfully distinguishes between a variety of different types of relativism, among them, genetic relativism, conceptual relativism, doxastic relativism, and status relativism. While it is true that the rationality of one’s beliefs and desires are relative to their grounds, and that these grounds may be variable among persons (p. 174), Audi nevertheless argues that this is compatible with the objective rational- ity of belief developed in the first chapters. The book concludes in chapter 8 with an account of “global rationality,” that displayed by fully rational persons who successfully integrate rational belief with right action and desire. Globally rational people don’t necessarily believe or desire precisely the same things, though there are common criteria that globally rational people tend to satisfy. Such persons have integrated beliefs and desires that reflect and are suitably responsive to experience and reflection; they desire their own pleasure and happiness and, insofar as they believe others’ experiences like their own, desire happiness and pleasure for others; they are also moral and value some things as intrinsically good. BOOK REVIEWS 383 Audi remarks that rationality “is a matter of cognitive traits, such as good habits of observation and inference and a tendency to get one’s beliefs into reflective equilibrium.” He also mentions, but doesn’t develop the way “hatred or prejudice” may undermine rationality. Such talk is strongly sug- gestive of thinking about rationality and other intellectual goods in terms of intellectual virtues. Audi, however, only alludes to this in a footnote. The notion of intellectual virtues and vices would not only help to amplify his account of globally rational persons, it would give more prominent atten- tion to the contributions of the will toward the overall rationality of our beliefs and desires. If the will, in its conative aspect, is the seat of one’s desires, concerns, affections, its role is crucial for Audi’s account of rational beliefs, desires, and emotions. Consider his example of the juror who believes rationally in the face of divided evidence. Suppose the juror is a bigot and the defendant a person of color. It is plausible to think that the state of the juror’s will influences the way he assesses the probative force of the evidence, and thus what he is rational in believing. Given the scope of book, it is, perhaps, unfair to object that Audi doesn’t take on still more material. And elsewhere, in “Epistemic Virtue and Justified Belief,” Audi does link intellectual virtues and rationality more directly. In sum, The Architecture of Rationality clearly exemplifies the intellectual excellences it analyzes and recommends. Though wide ranging, it is never- theless subtle, compactly written, and will repay the close reading and re- reading it so richly deserves. Reading Hume’s Dialogues: A Veneration for True Religion by William Lad Sessions, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. Pp. X + 281. $49.95 (cloth), $24.95 (paper). KEVIN SCHILBRACK, Wesleyan College This is the first book length commentary on David Hume’s Dialogues con- cerning Natural Religion. It is welcome in the first place simply because William Lad Sessions is a meticulous reader, and his observations are con- sistently insightful and profitable. But the approach of this book is distinc- tive, moreover, in that it pursues what Sessions calls an internal reading of the Dialogues.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Curriculum Vitae of Alvin Plantinga
    CURRICULUM VITAE OF ALVIN PLANTINGA A. Education Calvin College A.B. 1954 University of Michigan M.A. 1955 Yale University Ph.D. 1958 B. Academic Honors and Awards Fellowships Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1968-69 Guggenheim Fellow, June 1 - December 31, 1971, April 4 - August 31, 1972 Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1975 - Fellow, Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship, 1979-1980 Visiting Fellow, Balliol College, Oxford 1975-76 National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships, 1975-76, 1987, 1995-6 Fellowship, American Council of Learned Societies, 1980-81 Fellow, Frisian Academy, 1999 Gifford Lecturer, 1987, 2005 Honorary Degrees Glasgow University, l982 Calvin College (Distinguished Alumni Award), 1986 North Park College, 1994 Free University of Amsterdam, 1995 Brigham Young University, 1996 University of the West in Timisoara (Timisoara, Romania), 1998 Valparaiso University, 1999 2 Offices Vice-President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1980-81 President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1981-82 President, Society of Christian Philosophers, l983-86 Summer Institutes and Seminars Staff Member, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Metaphysics, 1968 Staff member and director, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion, 1973 Director, National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar, 1974, 1975, 1978 Staff member and co-director (with William P. Alston) NEH Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion (Bellingham, Washington) 1986 Instructor, Pew Younger Scholars Seminar, 1995, 1999 Co-director summer seminar on nature in belief, Calvin College, July, 2004 Other E. Harris Harbison Award for Distinguished Teaching (Danforth Foundation), 1968 Member, Council for Philosophical Studies, 1968-74 William Evans Visiting Fellow University of Otago (New Zealand) 1991 Mentor, Collegium, Fairfield University 1993 The James A.
    [Show full text]
  • Isaac E. Choi 291 Edwards Street New Haven, CT 06511 [email protected]
    Isaac E. Choi 291 Edwards Street New Haven, CT 06511 [email protected] Academic Positions Visiting Fellow, Rivendell Institute, Yale University, 2015–2017 Adjunct Instructor of Philosophy, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, 2016–2017 Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, 2014–2015 New Insights and Directions for Religious Epistemology project, led by John Hawthorne Junior Research Fellow, Somerville College, University of Oxford, 2014–2015 Research and Technical Assistant for Alvin I. Goldman, Rutgers University, 2013–2014 Editorial Assistant, Episteme, A Journal of Social Epistemology, Rutgers University, 2007–2011 Editor: Alvin I. Goldman Education Ph.D. in Philosophy, 2013 University of Notre Dame Dissertation: Epistemic Expertise: Its Nature and Appraisal Directors: Alvin Plantinga, Ted A. Warfield Additional Committee Members: Robert Audi, Alvin I. Goldman (Rutgers University), Leopold Stubenberg Visiting Graduate Student in Philosophy, 2007–2008 Rutgers University Th.M. in Philosophy and Theology, 2002, and M.Div., 2000 Princeton Theological Seminary A.B. in Chemistry, magna cum laude with highest honors in concentration, 1995 Harvard College Areas of Specialization Epistemology, Philosophy of Religion Areas of Competence Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science, Religion and Science, Logic, Ethics, Bioethics 2 Publications “Infinite Cardinalities, Measuring Knowledge, and Probabilities in Fine Tuning Arguments,” forthcoming in Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology, edited by Matthew A. Benton, John Hawthorne, and Dani Rabinowitz. Oxford: Oxford University Press. “Is Petitionary Prayer Superfluous?” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 7 (2016): 32–62. Review of Pascal’s Wager: Pragmatic Arguments and Belief in God, by Jeff Jordan, Religious Studies Review 35 (March 2009): 33.
    [Show full text]
  • Experience and Foundationalism in Audi's the Architecture of Reason
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXVII, No. 1, July 2003 Experience and Foundationalism in Audi’s The Architecture of Reason WALTER SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG Dartmouth College Robert Audi’s The Architecture of Reason is a magnificent consolidation of decades of original work by a masterful philosopher. Its scope is impressive, as it covers both theoretical and practical reason in a slim volume. More impressive yet is its coherence, for Audi reveals a unified structure shared by what many philosophers assume to be disparate fields. In this short comment, I will focus on just a few aspects of Audi’s pri- mary analogies between theoretical and practical reason. He argues that “reason, conceived as a general human capacity, is, as Kant thought, unified. It is unified above all by its grounding, directly or through belief, in experi- ence, sensory, introspective, memorial, and reflective.” (233; cf. ix, 16, 80, 222) Audi’s structural thesis, then, is that good reasoning always has some foundation. His substantive thesis is that the foundation is always some experience. Hence his subtitle, “The Structure and Substance of Rationality”. 1 - Experience Audi admits “some differences between theoretical and practical reason”, but he claims that “none of them undermines the main analogies.” (193) It is not clear what it takes to undermine an analogy. Still, his main analogy regarding substance depends on a wide concept of experience, so his analogy seems problematic if his notion of experience is not adequately unified. One striking difference between the experiences that are said to ground theoretical reason and those said to ground practical reason concerns time.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasons, Practical Reason, and Practical Reasoning
    © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Ratio (new series) XVII 2 June 2004 0034–0006 REASONS, PRACTICAL REASON, AND PRACTICAL REASONING Robert Audi Abstract The concepts of reasons as supporting elements, of practical reason as a capacity, and of practical reasoning as a process are central in the theory of action. This paper provides a brief account of each. Several kinds of reason for action are distinguished. Prac- tical reason is characterized both as a capacity whose exercise is largely constituted by a kind of responsiveness to reasons and as governed by certain normative principles; and practical reasoning is described as a kind of mental process in which reasons figure as premises and, from those premises, a practical conclusion is drawn. Much of the paper undertakes two related tasks: to distinguish the main kinds of practical reasoning and the associated criteria of assessment and to formulate some important substantive princi- ples of practical reason. These principles yield criteria of several sorts: logical, inferential, epistemic, and material. On the theory presented, although any (non-basic) intentional act can be grounded in practical reasoning, the same acts can be performed for the relevant reason(s) without being so grounded, and in either case their rationality depends on adequate support by the reason(s). One kind of reason is commonly thought to be captured by Kantian hypothetical imperatives. The final sections explore what constitutes a hypothetical imperative and what other princi- ples are needed to account for practical rationality. A major con- clusion is that in the domain of practical reason, if there are no categorical imperatives, there are no hypothetical imperatives either.
    [Show full text]
  • The Radical Ethics of Legal Rhetoricians
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ValpoScholar Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 32 Number 1 Fall 1997 pp.93-103 Fall 1997 The Radical Ethics of Legal Rhetoricians Jack L. Sammons Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jack L. Sammons, The Radical Ethics of Legal Rhetoricians, 32 Val. U. L. Rev. 93 (1997). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol32/iss1/4 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Sammons: The Radical Ethics of Legal Rhetoricians Commentary THE RADICAL ETHICS OF LEGAL RHETORICIANS JACK L. SAMMONS* I want to take seriously a claim that legal practitioners frequently made some twenty years ago, but one that fell into disrepute when academic legal ethicists took over the subject of legal ethics. The claim is that good lawyering is good ethics. This claim makes ethics a descriptive task, the description in question being a description of good lawyering. Of course, such a description of lawyering must come from, or at least start within, the practice.' Thus far I mean to say nothing more than that the excellences of lawyering, similar to the excellences of baseball, must be defined within the practice. Through the playing of baseball, we come to know that disciplined attention by a fielder to each batter is an excellence of the sport requiring certain knowledge, skills, and virtues, some of which are the abilities to maintain a calm temperament, to forget prior bad plays quickly, to avoid criticism of teammates for mistakes, and so forth.
    [Show full text]
  • Reassessing Religion's Place in a Liberal Democracy Brian Stiltner Sacred Heart University, [email protected]
    Sacred Heart University DigitalCommons@SHU Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies Faculty Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies Publications 10-2000 Reassessing Religion's Place in a Liberal Democracy Brian Stiltner Sacred Heart University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/rel_fac Part of the Ethics in Religion Commons, and the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Stiltner, Brian, "Reassessing Religion's Place in a Liberal Democracy" (2000). Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies Faculty Publications. Paper 4. http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/rel_fac/4 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies at DigitalCommons@SHU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@SHU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Volume 26 Number 4 / October 2000 Religious Studies Review/ 819 on the destructive aspects of religion, although they admit that reli- REASSESSING RELIGION’S PLACE gion is no panacea for a democracy. This rise of a more balanced IN A LIBERAL DEMOCRACY and appreciative account of religion’s role in liberal democracy bodes well for both liberal political theory and Christian public the- RELIGION AND CONTEMPORARYLIBERALISM ology. In this essay, I will consider several works that are represen- Edited by Paul J. Weithman tative of this trend. The literature relevant to the debate about reli- Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997 gion and liberalism is immense; my limiting principle here is to Pp. viii + 315. Cloth, $48.00, __paper, $23.00.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Preface
    MAR-31-2010 10:25 She rri Katz Working Without a Net A Study of Egocentric Epistemology RICHARD FOLEY New York Oxford OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1993 Oxford University Press Oxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras· Karachi Kuala Lumpur Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Nairobi Das es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland Madrid and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Copyright © 1993 by Richard Foley Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 200 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Oxford is a registered (trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of his publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, to any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Foley. Richard Working without a net: a study of egocentric epistemology / Richard Foley. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-.507699-0 1. Knowledge, Theory of. 2. Descartes, Rene, 1596—1650. I. Tittle. tz BD161.F58 1992 12[—dc20 91-48108 a K i r r e h S 10:25 0 -201 24 6 8 9 7 5 3 1 R-31 Printed in the United States of America MA on acid-free paper Preface Part of the fascination of philosophy is the way topics blend into one another You are writing on what you take to be a well-defined topic, but to your surprise you soon find yourself writing about something that antecedently would have seemed to have been a quite different topic. This is the experience I had with this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Perception Defended
    Moral Perception Defended Robert Audi University of Notre Dame Abstract This paper outlines my theory of moral perception, extends the theory beyond its previous statements, and defends it from a number of objections posed in the lit- erature. The paper distinguishes the perceptible from the perceptual; develops a structural analogy between perception and action; explains how moral percep- tion, despite its normative status, can be causal in the way appropriate to genuine perception; clarifies the respects in which moral perception is representational; and indicates how it provides an objective basis for moral knowledge. In the light of this account of moral perception, its presentational character is described, par- ticularly the phenomenological integration between our moral sensibility and our non-moral perception of the various kinds of natural properties that ground moral properties. The complexity of this integration raises the question whether moral perception is inferential and thereby quite different from ordinary perception. This question is answered by clarifying the notion of inference and by pursuing an analogy between moral perception and perception of emotion. Aesthetic percep- tion is also considered as, within limits, instructively analogous to moral percep- tion. The final parts of the paper explore the role of cognitive penetration and cognitive attitudes such as belief and judgment in relation to moral perception; the conceptual and developmental aspects of moral perception; and the latitude my overall account of it allows in the epistemology and ontology of ethics. Keywords: action-perception analogy, cognitive penetration, consequentiality, in- ference, moral knowledge, moral phenomenology, observability, perceptibility, phenomenological integration, representation. The topic of perception is crucial for many fields of philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflicts Empiricism Gene R
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 2001 Conflicts Empiricism Gene R. Shreve Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Shreve, Gene R., "Conflicts Empiricism" (2001). Articles by Maurer Faculty. Paper 481. http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/481 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONFLICTS EMPIRICISM GENE R. SHREVE* The topic of this symposium, "American Conflicts of Law at the Dawn of the 21st Century," is an important one, and I am grateful to Dean Symeonides and to the staff of the Willamette Law Review for the invitation to participate. Not long ago, I co- ordinated another symposium that addressed American conflicts law at the turn of the century.' My position as editor required me to maintain a distance from any particular topic raised in that symposium. One topic-empirical research in conflict of laws- especially intrigued me, and I am delighted to have an opportu- nity now to weigh in on that topic with some thoughts of my own.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction, Reduction, and the Nature of Epistemology
    Theoria 24, 2009, 134-146. CONSTRUCTION AND COGNITION Catherine Z. Elgin Abstract:The Structure of Appearance presents a phenomenalist system which constructs enduring visible objects out of qualia. Nevertheless Goodman does not espouse phenomenalism. Why not? In answering this question this paper explicates Goodman’s views about the nature and functions of constructional systems, the prospects of reductionism, and the character of epistemology. In The Structure of Appearance, Nelson Goodman presents a well worked out phenomenalist system which constructs enduring visible objects out of qualia. Nevertheless Goodman does not espouse phenomenalism. This is not because he considers his system somehow defective or inadequate. Although details remain to be filled in, he considers his system viable. And he believes his constructional methods could readily yield extensions to other sensory realms. So the question arises, why isn’t Goodman a phenomenalist? Answering this question sheds light on Goodman’s views about the nature and functions of constructional systems, the prospects of reductionism, and the character of epistemology. Phenomenalism The idea behind phenomenalism is this: Since all knowledge of the external world depends on observation, it should be possible to rigorously derive all knowable truths about the external world from truths about observations -- truths that refer only to what is sensory. Philosophers such as Russell and Moore were convinced that this possibility could be realized.1 But although they were committed to the reality and importance of sense data, they did not attempt to create the systematic constructions that would show 1 just how sense data constitute knowledge of the external world. No one claims that the basic units of a phenomenalist system – qualia, or sense data, or Elementarerlebnisse (hereafter ‘erlebs’), or whatever – are the stuff of common sense.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 "Re-Thinking Hobbes's Materialistic and Mechanistic Projects "
    "Re-thinking Hobbes's Materialistic and Mechanistic Projects " ROBERTARP I. Introduction In this paper I shall attempt to show that, despite his intention to formulate a thoroughly reductionistic and mechanistic philosophical system, Hobbes actu- ally fails on both accounts. First, I argue that Hobbes fails to be a consistent ontological reductionist, but his attempts at applying methodological reduction- ism fair much better. Then, I argue that Hobbes fails to be a strict mechanist since at times he seems to implicitly endorse the very Aristotelian/Scholastic categories he has explicitly rejected. Again, Hobbes's methodology appears mechanistic given its Galilean scope; however, his metaphysical views betray his views concerning the physics of the universe. In the end I maintain that such inconsistency, oversight and contradiction in his system is to be expected since Hobbes was, at once, philosopher and philosophical theologian existing on the cusp of the Scholastic and Modem worlds. II. Hobbes's materialistic project A. Materialism, Mechanism, Ontology and Methodology At the outset it is important to define and distinguish versions of materialism and mechanism.' A materialist thinks that all aspects of reality can be account- ed for in material terms. In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy Simon Blackburn defines materialism as the "view that the world is entirely composed of matter."2 Thomas Spragens saddles Hobbes with materialism when he claims ' I would like to thank the following persons for their valued criticisms, insights and support in the formulationof this paper: Richard Dees, Douglas Jesseph, Jack Marler, George Terzis and Catherine Wilson. 2 Simon Blackburn, The OxfordDictionary of Philosophy.(Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1996), p.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatic Philosophy, Theology, and Practices: Pointing Directions for African-American Public Theology
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Boston University Institutional Repository (OpenBU) Boston University OpenBU http://open.bu.edu Theses & Dissertations STH Theses and Dissertations 2013-05 Pragmatic Philosophy, Theology, and Practices: Pointing Directions for African-American Public Theology Rucks, Karen-Louise https://hdl.handle.net/2144/8463 Boston University BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY Dissertation PRAGMATIC PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY, AND PRACTICES: POINTING DIRECTIONS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN PUBLIC THEOLOGY By Karen-Louise Rucks (B.S. Temple University, 1980, M.A. Hartford Seminary, 1997, M.Div. Boston University School of Theology, 2001) Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology 2013 Copyright © 2013 by Karen-Louise Rucks All rights reserved. CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 The Thesis ................................................................................................................1 Methodology ............................................................................................................4 Limitations ...............................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]